Or you know rather than jump on the racism bandwagon maybe it has to do with needing to know the Spanish language.

I just don't have the patience to deal with non-English speaking destinations. That's not racism... just pragmatism.

Maybe not racism, but that's still a largely inaccurate generalization. English is spoken almost everywhere - even in countries where English isn't the primary language. You need to know approximately zero Spanish in Mexico City to be able to get by easily. I've had an easier time communicating with people in Rwanda, Tanzania, Mexico, Denmark, India, etc. than I did in rural Scotland where the "English" is so thick it's hard to understand. Even in Japan, where almost nobody will speak English, it's easy to get around and get by because signs, menus, etc. are all in English.

I understand that everyone has their preferences, and non-English speaking countries intimidate some travelers; but not speaking the local language really isn't an issue in most places people travel to at least semi-regularly. At all.

Or you know rather than jump on the racism bandwagon maybe it has to do with needing to know the Spanish language.

I just don't have the patience to deal with non-English speaking destinations. That's not racism... just pragmatism.

Your "pragmatism" is causing you to miss out on... most of the world.

__________________"You cannot take in a whole Boston street with a single glance of the eye and then lose your interest because you have thus taken the edge off future discovery; on the contrary, every step reveals some portion of a building which you could not see before, some change in your vista, and some suggestion of pleasant variety yet to come, which not only keeps your interest alive but heightens it and persuades you to go on."

TF Green is on a nice little run with the Frontier and Norwegian additions. This is another good one. After LCCs like Southwest and Jetblue expanded in Boston, Providence took a bit of a nose dive in Passenger numbers. I'm glad to see they're adding more flights (inc. more international ones) now. It's a great airport.

It seems that way. While PVD is actually a bit further from Boston than MHT, it's far better connected and serves a much larger population center. So those factors certainly don't hurt. I've flown from MHT a few times too though and the experience has been good.

Or you know rather than jump on the racism bandwagon maybe it has to do with needing to know the Spanish language.

I just don't have the patience to deal with non-English speaking destinations. That's not racism... just pragmatism.

Fortunately for English speakers, English is the language of business like French is the language of diplomacy. English is a common lingua franca and you will find that many well educated people around the world speak at least some english.

Also the star rating system for hotels, four star hotels require bilingual staff, 5 star hotels multi lingual staff. English is usually one of the languages spoken. There's a reason why international business travelers tend to stay in these higher quality places.

JetBlue CEO Robin Hayes is scheduled at a Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce meeting Thursday, where he is expected to announce the start date for flights from Worcester Regional Airport to New York.

The airline earlier this year announced the expansion of flights from Worcester airport to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, a major development for New England's second-largest city.

These new flights will allow people in Central Massachusetts to make day trips to New York or connect to international flights departing from JFK.

Day trips? Worcester is even closer to NYC by car than Boston and lots of people drive to NYC from Boston. Weird statement by the CEO.

He's an airline CEO. He's not saying that trips were impossible on other modes. He's saying day trips are now possible by air.

Worcester is in a funny spot vs NYC travel, perhaps exploitable by JetBlue:
- Acela is a good option...but you have to drive to PVD
- Driving is good to Westchester/Triboro type places that LGA or HPN are near, but getting to Brooklyn or Wall St can be hard
- JFK has Air Train + A Train access to Brooklyn & Wall Street
- Growth at PVD suggests ORH should be able to support more service, even though it has always struggled
- JetBlue has had decent success adding odd airports within major metros (LGB in Los Angeles, SWF and HPN in Greater NYC)
- I-95 (and soon I-84) (re)construction are a big wildcard for car trips

__________________"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn

Boston-London Gatwick will be daily on Norwegian for the summer season.

BUT it appears seasonal Boston-Oslo/Copenhagen are cut by Norwegian unless there is a shuffle going on from other recent long haul adds (Los Angeles-Milan, JFK-Amsterdam, JFK/LA-Madrid). They did post a long-haul route map with the routes still being served. There's a chance they are just syncing these flights to go on the off-days of the Boston-Paris flight.

Boston-London Gatwick will be daily on Norwegian for the summer season.

BUT it appears seasonal Boston-Oslo/Copenhagen are cut by Norwegian unless there is a shuffle going on from other recent long haul adds (Los Angeles-Milan, JFK-Amsterdam, JFK/LA-Madrid). They did post a long-haul route map with the routes still being served. There's a chance they are just syncing these flights to go on the off-days of the Boston-Paris flight.

Looks like they're definitely cutting Oslo and Stockholm to help fill LGW daily and also new routes from LAX and JFK.

On the plus side Hainan is adding frequencies on Shanghai - Boston. They cut Shanghai - Seattle in order to do this.

I feel like Boston could easily support cities like Oslo or Stockholm with a 737 or A320. A 787 is too large for those markets.

With the NEO and MAX hopefully we'll start seeing more flights to smaller and mid sized European cities.

I would think between business traffic for the offshore wind industry mass is trying to jump start and simple tourist interest would have sustained the seasonal twice weekly oslo flight. I guess not. I don't want the 737 or a320- I refuse to fly long haul in the increasingly uncomfortable economy class and norwegian has no premium economy on these.

I feel like Boston could easily support cities like Oslo or Stockholm with a 737 or A320. A 787 is too large for those markets.

With the NEO and MAX hopefully we'll start seeing more flights to smaller and mid sized European cities.

My question would be, who is going to fly them? Boston - Europe is very well served and there really are not a lot of cities that would warrant service. Lisbon, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Rome, Zurich, Amsterdam, London (Heathrow, Gatwick and Stanstead), Birmingham, Manchester, Dublin, Shannon, Manchester, Reykjavik, Copenhagen, Frankfurt and Munich all have non-stop service. Some of these are seasonal and for good reason. Apart from Brussels, Milan and maybe Berlin, what is left that would warrant service in Europe?